The Instigator
Projectid
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
Skynet
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

God is NOT Pro-Life

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Projectid
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/27/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,023 times Debate No: 37084
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)

 

Projectid

Pro

I find it strange that God commands His people to not murder and then proceeds to kill anyone He wants, I guess that is why they call Him God.

The point of this debate is to prove simply that the God of the Holy Bible kills and or allows the killing of unborn children of women for the purpose of punishment. To which we will call Holy abortion.

This is Holy abortion by the God of the Christians. So why do Christians rail against abortion so much, when their own God is a God of abortion.

The first text under scrutiny is Hosea 9: 16
Ephraim is stricken,
Their root is dried up;
They shall bear no fruit.
Yes, were they to bear children,
I would kill the darlings of their womb." (NIV)

The context of the passage is the punishment of Israel for being unfaithful to God. This passage makes God a hypocrite. He commands man to not murder, then murders whom ever He wants. This is the God of love that Christians follow.

The second text:
In the context of the previous passage we have this stated:

Hosea 13:16 [a]Samaria will be held guilty,
For she has rebelled against her God.
They will fall by the sword,
Their little ones will be dashed in pieces,
And their pregnant women will be ripped open. (NASB)

These two passages are sufficient to prove that God either permits the killing of unborn children and or kills unborn children Himself.

But there is more:
In the case of a suspected adulterous women:
Numbers 5:21
21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse""may the Lord cause you to become a curse[b] among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell.

Here God will make the women miscarry.

In Second Kings, we learn that Menahem, leader of the Israelites, smote all the people who refused to follow him "and all the women therein that were with child he ripped up" (2 Kings 15:16).

This is God turning His head and allowing these monstrosities to happen.

Christians claim that it is an abomination to abort a child for any reason, but in these passages we see that God allows it to happen and even gets in on it Himself.

God is NOT pro-life
Skynet

Con

"The point of this debate is to prove simply that the God of the Holy Bible kills and or allows the killing of unborn children of women for the purpose of punishment. To which we will call Holy abortion."

Well, he does, but from the rest of R1, it seems obvious that Pro does not intend to "simply" prove God uses the death of the unborn as punishment.

Pro adds to this simple argument other burdens for him to prove, such as the hypocrisy of God in killing the unborn, and the moral illogic of Christians taking a moral position when God doesn't follow that same rule.

For this argument my opponent and I will be assuming the God of the Bible exists, and that the record of his character and actions are accurate in the Bible. I do not see how we can go forward with the debate otherwise.

A quick note:
+My opponent points out a portion of the account of King Menahem as if it were an action approved or ignored by God. If you read a few verses further, you can see it was not an action sanctioned by God, and explicitly called out as evil, and included in the Bible to this day as such. (17-18)
"In the thirty-ninth year of Azariah king of Judah, Menahem son of Gadi became king of Israel, and he reigned in Samaria ten years. 18"He did evil in the eyes of the Lord. During his entire reign he did not turn away from the sins of Jeroboam son of Nebat, which he had caused Israel to commit."
Actions like these are the very reasons judgments was brought upon Israel, as violence and the ways of Jeroboam son of Nebat are constantly cited as evil.

Now some historical context to Pro's biblical quotes:
+I will briefly explain the context of Hosea. Israel has fallen into sin mirroring and "improving" upon the sins of the Cannanites driven out before them. They were warned not to do this hundreds of years earlier:
Leviticus 20:1 The Lord said to Moses, 2""Say to the Israelites: "Any Israelite or any foreigner residing in Israel who sacrifices any of his children to Molek (a local pagan deity) is to be put to death. The members of the community are to stone him. 3"I myself will set my face against him and will cut him off from his people; for by sacrificing his children to Molek, he has defiled my sanctuary and profaned my holy name. 4"If the members of the community close their eyes when that man sacrifices one of his children to Molek and if they fail to put him to death, 5"I myself will set my face against him and his family and will cut them off from their people together with all who follow him in prostituting themselves to Molek."

In 2nd Chronicles 33 King Manassah: He sacrificed his children in the fire in the Valley of Ben Hinnom, practiced divination and witchcraft, sought omens, and consulted mediums and spiritists. He did much evil in the eyes of the Lord, arousing his anger.

The prophets Isaiah (57:5) and Ezekiel (16:20-21) also testify to these practices at various times in the nations" history (Israel and Judah).
""20 And you took your sons and daughters whom you bore to me and sacrificed them as food to the idols. Was your prostitution not enough? 21"You slaughtered my children and sacrificed them to the idols."

Now I"d like to cut through to the meat of the matter: Why does God kill so much, especially the very young, and command us not to? Doesn"t that make God hypocritical?

No. First off, God is not like an elected leader that we are accustomed to, who arises from our own number and is expected to follow the rules he legislates or passes. He is God, the creator, owner and sustainer of the Universe. He made the rules for Israel, but he is not expected to make sacrifices or pay the temple tax, or anything else under the law, because he is above the law.

Furthermore, he would be totally justified if he snuffed out the life of everyone everywhere before the end of this debate. We"re all going to be snuffed out anyway, it just normally takes a few decades, and for many of us will not be pleasant.
In Genesis 1:16-17 God commands Adam not to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil "for when you eat from it you will certainly die." This was literal spiritual death that leads to literal physical death. "The wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23). Jesus told a disciple he was recruiting "let the dead bury their own dead," when he requested to delay his recruitment to bury his parents. (Matt. 8:22)

My point is, we"re all as good as dead, but God is patient in allowing us time to repent, but if he had no patience on someone, he"d be totally justified to do so, because patience with sin is not required of him. It"s just very kind of him to be that way.

Romans 9:14-29
What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15"For he says to Moses,
"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
""""and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."
16"It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God"s mercy. 17"For Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." 18"Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
19"One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?" 20"But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, "Why did you make me like this?"" 21"Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?
22"What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath"prepared for destruction? 23"What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory" 24"even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?"

As judge of the all mankind, God has the authority to make rules for us that do not apply to him. Your parents had the authority to set a curfew for you, but didn't have to follow the curfew themselves. This doesn't make them hypocrites.
My opponent's argument is invalid.

It assumes God must follow rules he set specifically for only humans.

It assumes God has no right to the lives of people, even though he owns all humanity and all of us will die eventually because of sin judged by His standard, not ours.
Debate Round No. 1
Projectid

Pro

Con concedes: "Well, he does, but from the rest of R1, it seems obvious that Pro does not intend to "simply" prove God uses the death of the unborn as punishment."

The CON agrees that God uses the death of unborn children for punishment. The CON then goes on to qualify that it is ok because God is not subject to His own nature.

CON: "God is not like an elected leader that we are accustomed to, who arises from our own number and is expected to follow the rules he legislates or passes. He is God, the creator, owner and sustainer of the Universe. He made the rules for Israel, but he is not expected to make sacrifices or pay the temple tax, or anything else under the law, because he is above the law."

CON: "My opponent points out a portion of the account of King Menahem as if it were an action approved or ignored by God"

When an all powerful and all knowing and all loving God allows atrocities to happen without intervening, this is called ignoring, therefore allowing.

CON: " As judge of the all mankind, God has the authority to make rules for us that do not apply to him. Your parents had the authority to set a curfew for you, but didn't have to follow the curfew themselves. This doesn't make them hypocrites."
Comparing parents with God does not work. It is about God's nature and whether or not He can go against His own declared nature from the Holy Bible. Either God is the standard of what morality is or He is not.

CON writes: "Pro adds to this simple argument other burdens for him to prove, such as the hypocrisy of God in killing the unborn, and the moral illogic of Christians taking a moral position when God doesn't follow that same rule."

Hypocrisy of God in killing the unborn

If God's actions and His commandments are not aligned then they are contradictory. Which either makes Him a hypocrite or non-existent, or not supreme. If God's commandments are expressions of his holy and loving nature, then to do things contrary to his commandments would be to act against his own nature. This makes God a hypocrite.

(1) Any act that God commits, causes, commands, or condones is morally permissible. TRUE

(2) The Bible reveals to us many of the acts that God commits, causes, commands, and condones. TRUE

(3) It is morally impermissible for anyone to commit, cause, command, or condone, acts that violate our moral principles. TRUE

(4) The Bible tells us that God does in fact commit, cause, command, or condone, acts that violate our moral principles. TRUE

What is the nature of a God that says:
Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up. -- Hosea 13:16

What God commands is moral, the Bible is accurate in its description of God's actions and commands, and there are certain acts (Hosea 13:16) committed or commanded by God that are immoral.

"One irony is that through the moral gymnastics to justify why a good God behaves worse than the most vile criminal in human history, the believer maintains that God is still the one and only source of moral goodness in the world. So the believer, like most normal people, has a highly developed and sensitive capacity for recognizing goodness and moral obligation, but they systematically refuse to apply that capacity to God. If they did, the obvious result would be that God"s a moral monstrosity, and yet they maintain all the while that God, despite his failure to live up to any of those obvious moral truths, is the real source of goodness. Their infatuation with the God idea has rendered them unable to see something that would be starkly obvious in any other ordinary case; if a person behaved like God is alleged to, we would think that he was guilty of the most awful moral crimes in moral history." - Matt McCormick
Skynet

Con

The issues my opponent has, as I understand them:

God has clear, objective morals stated in the Bible. One of them is "You shall not murder." Christians largely take the Pro-life stance because if a fetus is merely a less-physically developed human with a soul, killing the fetus would be murder. God says he will kill the unborn in certain places, and obviously allows it to happen every day through miscarriage. Therefore, my opponent says God is a murderer for breaking his own commandment, also a hypocrite.

To be certain, let me offer a simple example of how God is exempt from a few rules he makes for humans, and that he can make rules that only apply to humans that he doesn't have to follow, but there is no hypocricy:

Leviticus is a book of history, but mostly a book of regulations for the Israelite priesthood, who were of the tribe of Levi. Lev. 16 contains regulations for the priest who is to enter the Most Holy Place once a year (the place where the Ark of the Covenant was housed). The priest was to do very specific things, like wash a certain way, wear certain clothes, take certain sacrifices, and do other very specific things. The penalty for violating these rules was death.

"The Lord said to Moses: “Tell your brother Aaron that he is not to come whenever he chooses into the Most Holy Place behind the curtain in front of the atonement cover on the ark, or else he will die. For I will appear in the cloud over the atonement cover." -Lev. 16:2

Two things from this passage back my argument.
1. Aaron (the highest priestly line) MUST do certain things when he is in there, or die, and there are even rules about when he can enter.

2. God is not limited to when he can go into the Most Holy Place. He is not Levite, he is not a priest, he does not bring sacrifices when he enters. But he enters how he chooses, without penalty.

And in Luke 1:5-22 we see Zechariah meet the angel Gabriel in the Most Holy Place. Gabriel is not a Levite, nor does he bring the appropriate sacrifices.

-The Levitical rules do not apply to angels, either. It is apparent some rules only apply to humans. In our own secular laws, minors are not allowed to engage in a contract. This does not make adults hypocrites for engaging in contracts, aquiring drivers liscences, hand guns, gambling, joining the military, or any other adult only activity. Rules can apply to classes of people, so my analogy about curfew is still apt.

I will now answer bigger questions about the nature of God, beyond temple customs and regulations:

"When an all powerful and all knowing and all loving God allows atrocities to happen without intervening, this is called ignoring, therefore allowing."

"What is the nature of a God that says:
Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up."

Matthew 22:23-32
"That same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question. 24 “Teacher,” they said, “Moses told us that if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and raise up offspring for him. 25 Now there were seven brothers among us. The first one married and died, and since he had no children, he left his wife to his brother. 26 The same thing happened to the second and third brother, right on down to the seventh. 27 Finally, the woman died. 28 Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?”

29 Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. 30 At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. 31 But about the resurrection of the dead—have you not read what God said to you, 32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.”


Daniel 7:9-12
“As I looked,

“thrones were set in place,
and the Ancient of Days took his seat....
10 A river of fire was flowing,
coming out from before him.
Thousands upon thousands attended him;
ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him.
The court was seated,
and the books were opened.

11 “Then I continued to watch because of the boastful words the horn was speaking. I kept looking until the beast was slain and its body destroyed and thrown into the blazing fire. 12 (The other beasts had been stripped of their authority, but were allowed to live for a period of time.)

It is apparent that Hell is open before the throne of God, and he throws evil ones there. It is also apparent that the dead are not deleted from all existance, and there is a bodily ressurection. So this death thing might look permanent to our short, several decade existance, but everyone's still before God after physical death.
God's rule for us is that we not remove from the Earth the lives of our fellow man without justification. Genesis 9:4-6 is the first declaration of murder as a capital crime:

And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each human being, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of another human being.

6 “Whoever sheds human blood,
by humans shall their blood be shed;
for in the image of God
has God made mankind.


The only person who can call someone else to account for treatment of something(life-blood) is someone who has authority/ownership over the thing, or an authorized agent of the authority.

God has authority over human life because he created it, he owns it. He will sit in judgement of all sin, and all those things that people like King Manassah did, and you and I did, will be answered for at a final day of judgement.

Our death is inevitable because of sin, whether we die in the womb, in war, on the street, or in a nursing home. This brief period of life that many of us have been graciously given is a chance to repent. The correct judgement on us all is death, and God allowed Jesus to take the judgement for us. If we don't repent, we will not be forgiven, and God will seperate us from Himself since he does not tolerate continued evil in his prescence. You call misery in life God's hypocricy, when what you are actually seeing is God's mercy in not immediately sending our entire species to Hell. Because you are right that a good God wouldn't tolerate evil. I would not complain about second chances.
Debate Round No. 2
Projectid

Pro

(1) Any act that God commits, causes, commands, or condones is morally permissible. TRUE

(2) The Bible reveals to us many of the acts that God commits, causes, commands, and condones. TRUE

(3) It is morally impermissible for anyone to commit, cause, command, or condone, acts that violate our moral principles. TRUE

(4) The Bible tells us that God does in fact commit, cause, command, or condone, acts that violate our moral principles. TRUE

Above we have a set of statements that have not been dealt with by the CON.

I stand that all the statements are true, yet the CON will refuse #4 based on his previous thoughts, however I implore those reading this debate, that it is not possible for #4 to be false.

It strikes me funny that our morals today have gone beyond the very atrocities that God was involved with in the Bible.

The CON conceded that God kills and or allows the killing of unborn children of women for the purpose of punishment. This of course is a very small portion of the MASS killing that went on throughout scripture.

I ask the CON if he would be alright with God acting out today in the same manner as He did in the past? If CON is okay with the God of the Holy Bible doing all that He did through out Biblical history, then he certainly must be okay with God doing it today. If God is not bound to His own laws, certainly Christians should be okay with the actions of God and those who He commanded to carry out these "MORAL" acts. These acts must be MORAL if God commanded it, right? Dare we say that either God is immoral or those following His killing orders are immoral. The Christian cannot and will not and does not say this, even though if it were to happen today the world would be appalled based on our higher standard of morals.

When God commands humans to mass kill other humans in the Bible to gain land, this puts other humans above the very laws that God commanded. HYPOCRISY!

You cannot justify God's actions of immorality by pointing to other scriptures to quantify it, because we know better.

Even Christianity is divided about morality, Christians cannot even agree on what morality is in accordance to God.

According to the Center for the Study of Global Christianity (CSGC) at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, there are approximately 41,000 Christian denominations and organizations in the world. This statistic takes into consideration cultural distinctions of denominations in different countries, so there is overlapping of many denominations. http://christianity.about.com...

41,000 Denominations! I think God could have done a better job of making His requirements more clear.

CON: Our death is inevitable because of sin, whether we die in the womb, in war, on the street, or in a nursing home. This brief period of life that many of us have been graciously given is a chance to repent. The correct judgement on us all is death, and God allowed Jesus to take the judgement for us. If we don't repent, we will not be forgiven, and God will seperate us from Himself since he does not tolerate continued evil in his prescence. You call misery in life God's hypocricy, when what you are actually seeing is God's mercy in not immediately sending our entire species to Hell. Because you are right that a good God wouldn't tolerate evil. I would not complain about second chances.

Your sermon at the end of your post does nothing for your defense of God. Sin entered the world because of God creating Adam and Eve to have the propensity to sin, places temptation in front of them, and then tells them to stay away from a tree and the fruit that He put there that would give them knowledge. Then God allows Satan (God's Bulldog), to tempt them, all so that God could curse mankind.

I imagine that an all powerful, all loving, all knowing God should have foreseen this from the start and done a better job. It is funny that somehow the very sinning that took place in the garden has condemned the entirety of mankind forever unless they bow to Jesus Christ.

All this work God did to have a world full of people, his supposed children, that He will condemn to hell if they do not believe His book, which I mind you that is full of horrific and terrible stories about His true nature, not the nature that people make up to fit there lives, but the nature that we see of Him killing so many people. Killing more people than Satan, by the biblical count.

God is not PRO-LIFE, if He was then He would have done things different from the beginning.

Again I hope the CON will deal with statements posted twice now that prove that logically the God of the Holy Bible is not moral.

Thank you for this most engaging debate. I appropriate your time and effort.
Skynet

Con

(1) Any act that God commits, causes, commands, or condones is morally permissible. TRUE

(2) The Bible reveals to us many of the acts that God commits, causes, commands, and condones. TRUE

(3) It is morally impermissible for anyone to commit, cause, command, or condone, acts that violate our moral principles. FALSE

It is morally impermissible for us to violate the rules God commands of us. I already demonstrated thoroughly how there are rules set for specific groups of beings, without hypocrisy, and Pro did not answer that argument. He only continued to accuse me of ignoring his argument.
Not only that, but Pro doesn't distinguish between different types of killing. Murder is unjustified, but war and execution not nessecarily so. A judge may sentence death, and it isn't murder. God is all knowing, and Supreme judge, so any killing he does is justified. Not only that, but Pro asserts all start off innocent, rather than guilty, as the Bible says. He then goes into the territory of an entirely different debate: If God is good, why does sin exist?

Not only does Pro go off track from the subject of the debate he himself set, he violated the rule I set as a requirement in R1, that for the purposes of the debate
"...the God of the Bible exists, and that the record of his character and actions are accurate in the Bible."

I demonstrated from Genesis how God has authority/controlling interest/patent rights/whatever you want to call it over all mankind as creator and judge. Therefore a decision to destroy or keep is all his.

Much of the middle of the Pro's final round is made up of unsubstantiated claims.

"our morals today have gone beyond the very atrocities that God was involved with in the Bible
."

Who constitutes "our?" Are we talking Americans? All people on Earth? The two of us in this debate? And how does Pro know what is morally superior if he rejects God and the Bible? This is moral objectivity with no stated objectives.

"I ask the CON if he would be alright with God acting out today in the same manner as He did in the past?"

I, CON, am alright with God acting as he always has. Those that think God has changed from one end of the Book to the other ignore or are ignorant of much content in both parts of the Book.

"Dare we say that either God is immoral or those following His killing orders are immoral."

No, because this broadly assumes innocence of all killed, and ignores the decision making capabilities of an omniscient judge.

The Christian cannot and will not and does not say this, even though if it were to happen today the world would be appalled based on our higher standard of morals."

There's that nebulous "our" again. Now Pro speaks for the moral conscience of 7 billion people. A LARGE percentage of whom are Muslim. And again, a claim of moral standard attached to...what standard? A standard is known, like the meter or the pound or the dollar, or the Ten Commandments. Being this is the last round, this is a poor time for Pro to mention a superseding moral standard and not specify what it is, and how we know it's superior.

"When God commands humans to mass kill other humans in the Bible to gain land, this puts other humans above the very laws that God commanded. HYPOCRISY!"

If Pro is talking about the conquest of Canaan, child sacrifice and other evil practices are not acknowledged, and the assumption is the Canaanites were peaceful and sinless.

"You cannot justify God's actions of immorality by pointing to other scriptures to quantify it, because we know better."

Another appeal to unspecified moral objectives, and the nebulous "we."

"41,000 Denominations! I think God could have done a better job of making His requirements more clear."

This argument seems to imply that most of the 41,000 denominations regard most the others as heretics, and split off from one another just as those few pioneers did during the Reformation. In fact, most of the reformers from which many of these denominations sprung, split off for much the same reasons from the Roman Catholic Church, that is it's corruption, hiding of Scripture from the masses, etc. Some reformers had disagreements, but language, time, and geo-political separation are the main reasons for the divisions. Puritans and Lutherans were mainly divided by the North Sea, not creed. Most Protestant denominations agree on the most important issues, like salvation and the nature of God, the rest is less important to us.[1] My opponent wishes to see division where there is far less than he thinks, despite the impressive, admittedly inflated number he cites.

"Your sermon at the end of your post does nothing for your defense of God. Sin entered the world because of God creating Adam and Eve to have the propensity to sin, places temptation in front of them, and then tells them to stay away from a tree and the fruit that He put there that would give them knowledge."

I will point out to the audience that the Bible is full of sermons, from prophets, Jesus, kings, Apostles, and priests. The Bible has been used throughout this debate as legitimate evidence, until this round, where Pro suddenly lowers the worth of a condensed and accurate explanation of the effects and consequences of The Fall and salvation because it became personal.

My argument that justified God's wrath against sin was ignored and Pro once again went off into a different debate question, "If God is good, why is there sin?"

My argument that ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE, which is assumed true and accurate for this debate per R1, God is justified in killing us all, but does not do so immediately that we have a chance to turn to him and live, and that God is Pro-Life in commanding us to not to murder, but justified in killing the guilty, remains unrefuted.

Pro has not met his burden of proof that God approves of human-caused abortion.

1.) https://en.wikipedia.org...

Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
You mean to say you value "human life". You don't value plant life, nor animal life. The argument stems from is the fetus a person, not a life.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
I like this idea of a debate. The only thing I'd suggest changing is putting your current argument into notepad (or otherwise save it), and make first round acceptance only (plus list any other rules you'd like).

I saw this simply to decrease comment bomb risks.
Posted by TN05 3 years ago
TN05
dannyc - We Christians value the next life, but we value this life just as much. Life is a gift, and it has unique value - if you die, you never get to live this life again. Life is not to be wasted.
Posted by dannyc 3 years ago
dannyc
If the statement is 'I believe all aborted babies go to heaven' then it can be argued that at the least Christians should be supportive or in favour of the legalisation of this method. If the aim of Christians is to 'save' people then abortion is an effective and safe way of ensuring sending thousands of lives to heaven. While the action may be a sin, no one requires a Christian to perform it and a non-Christian who does abortions can if he/she chooses commit themselves to God, and in doing so send themselves and every single child they helped abort to heaven.

As earth is a temporal zone of intense suffering according to Christians, and heaven is ultimate peace, then abortion should be a very serious point for reflection. We get blank 'abortion is wrong in all cases' when if what I have said is true then is should not be that clear cut. If those babies don't go to heaven then God is not what I would call morally good or merciful. I don't use the argument a lot but I think it is valid.
Posted by Projectid 3 years ago
Projectid
I am not sure I understand what you are saying. Can you clarify your statement, please?
Posted by dannyc 3 years ago
dannyc
I usually try out my christians should support abortion argument.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by spankme 3 years ago
spankme
ProjectidSkynetTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con accused Pro of getting personal when Pro refuted the fact that sin is here because of God; I do not feel that Pro was being personal at all but made a good point. Con's explanation as to why God causes and/or allows killings does not say much for God in my opinion. I feel Pro has proven that though Pro-Lifers may be against someone ending a pregnancy by choice, they worship a god who kills by choice out of jealousy and anger, and allows others to be killed. Just because he is "God" doesn't make it right: especially if he is to be the standard of morality.
Vote Placed by Juan_Pablo 3 years ago
Juan_Pablo
ProjectidSkynetTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro argued the following: "The point of this debate is to prove simply that the God of the Holy Bible kills and or allows the killing of unborn children of women for the purpose of punishment." Well, even though generally I believe God is Pro-life, I had a hard time opposing the statement above because I know it's true. I awarded points to Pro on this basis.